The only way I can see that it could be arguable that we "transcend nature" is that our possession of language allows us to be reflectively aware of the potential dangers of following our instincts, but it's not looking like that is going to help us out of the pickle we are in, because at the moment it is mostly "business as usual" sustained by copious denial and empty rationalization. — Janus

Well, philosophy promises nothing. In fact, from the very beginning, Socrates pointed out how useless it is. So what else is philosophy if nothing else than "business as usual"? I don't know what crazy expectations some of us may hold of philosophy, but I assure you it is delusion.

But they are not. — Banno

Both the collective and the individual may be seen as either subject or object; It all depends on perspective and what you want to do with it.

Both the collective and the individual may be seen as either subject or object; — Janus

Indeed, if what you want to do is to stay inside the bottle.

Maybe you're right; although I do like Aristotle's concept of phronesis, usually translated as 'practical wisdom'. unfortunately I don't see much reason to think humanity in general is currently practicing it much. Time will tell as to whether we can become self-reflective and intellectually honest enough to acknowledge and face our present dilemmas.

Philosophy should help with that since it has been said to be most appropriately thought of as 'love of wisdom'; but as long as it is thought of as an intellectual diversion or a collection of language games I don't think it will turn out to be of much use.

Banno: just think if it as a language game. Your participation is not required.

Indeed, if what you want to do is to stay inside the bottle. — Banno

Inside the bottle is where philosophy takes place. Outside of it you are just drifting in the aether and screaming into the void about your objection to the myriad bottles of philosophical discourse.

The bottle is a figment of your imagination, I would say. Or, perhaps you could say that one man's bottle is another man's freedom.

Outside of it you are just drifting in the aether and screaming into the void about your objection to the myriad bottles of philosophical discourse. — Merkwurdichliebe

:cool: I like it! reminds me of Dostoevsky's "Pouring from the empty into the void".

Philosophy should help with that since it has been said to be most appropriately thought of as 'love of wisdom'; but as long as it is thought of as an intellectual diversion or a collection of language games i don't think it will turn out to be of much use. — Janus

That ties into the idea of Socratic ignorance.
Socrates was the wisest because of his ignorance of wisdom. Socrates uses irony to examine philosophical pressuppotions, as if to reach an understanding. The irony is, that he always arrived at the conclusion that we know nothing about our philosophical presuppositions, and as they are, they tell us nothing.

You make interesting points! For me the idea of "Socratic ignorance" indicates the dependence of discursive knowledge (leaving aside for the moment analytic or empirical knowledge) on presuppositions which we either cannot recognize or cannot help making. I don't think of wisdom as being knowledge in that sense at all, but rather as being a direct intelligent 'knowing what to do' that depends very much on circumstance. I think of good aesthetic and ethical judgement in the same way; as being a matter of contextualized wisdom rather than determinate knowledge.

Yes, I agree, but Socrates was essentially concerned with the ethical, as in: what should one do, and why? He approached the ethical as a decision taking place in our immediate existence. In, contrast, Aristotle approached ethics speculatively, and deeply interwove it into his metaphysics (and political philosophy).

But I might dispute that the real and natural are synonymous. Consider that the unnatural can also be real (let's call it the synthetic). And indeed I am real, the posts are real, and they likely have a phenomenal reality beyond my immediacy. But, regardless of our mode of reality, I am still a mixture of the natural and synthetic, and all my posts are entirely synthetic. — Merkwurdichliebe

I thought tautologies were stupid.

What does it mean to be "unnatural"? How can a natural thing cause an unnatural thing?

Other animals shape their environment to their needs and even build structures. Is a bird's nest or beaver's dam "unnatural"? Stars "pollute" the galaxy with the newer, heavier elements that are forged inside them, and these elements are still considered natural.

So what reason could you have to single out human creations and environmental changes with a different term (like "synthetic", "artificial" and "unnatural") other than assuming that humans are special in some way?

I thought tautologies were stupid. — Harry Hindu

They are, for instance:

What does it mean to be "unnatural"? How can a natural thing cause an unnatural thing? — Harry Hindu

It means: to not be natural.
By removing the thing in question from its nature.

Is a bird's nest or beaver's dam "unnatural"? — Harry Hindu

Yes it is. The beaver activity is natural. The wood they harvest is from trees in nature. But as soon as they render the trees into wood for damn building, the trees are no longer in their natural state. My argument is that humans are capable of doing this to themselves. Even if human technology can be considered natural, it nevertheless functions by removing humans from their original nature (technology is the beaver, and humans are the wood).

(I think a better term than technology is human artifice)

I think of good aesthetic and ethical judgement in the same way; as being a matter of contextualized wisdom rather than determinate knowledge. — Janus

Yes, I agree. The difference is that the aesthetic judgement is directed toward objectivity, whereas the ethical judgement is reversed back upon the subject.

I should add that I don't see humanity in that anti-humanist way, I see us as an apex predator out of control, kind of like a "pig in shit". — Janus

Lol

Look what they've done to my thread, Ma... — Banno

:rofl:

I totally agree with you on that: I certainly don't advocate following the mob. We can look after our own lives and position ourselves as best we are able to weather the coming storm. — Janus

I don't know how you'd reconcile that with other comments of yours.

Point is, there isn't a problem to solve. So the more one tries to solve it, the further one gets from the answer... so to speak. — Banno

I think I get where you're coming from, but I disagree. It's sort of like, there's only a problem if we make it a problem. I make it a problem when I fight on behalf of bringing philosophy back down to earth, instead of walking away and making some cheese on toast.

I think I get where you're coming from, but I disagree. It's sort of like, there's only a problem if we make it a problem. I make it a problem when I fight on behalf of bringing philosophy back down to earth, instead of walking away and making some cheese on toast. — S

You have a sort of Nietchzean spirit. Ever read about eternal return?

You have a sort of Nietchzean spirit. Ever read about eternal return? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes. I have "Amor fati" tattooed on my wrist. It serves as a reminder.

On my other wrist, I have "Cheese on toast". (I don't, it actually says "Carpe Diem", but that would be funny. Maybe that'll be my next tattoo).

Right on!

And you should cover your back with Lorem Ipsum 

Yes it is. The beaver activity is natural. The wood they harvest is from trees in nature. But as soon as they render the trees into wood for damn building, the trees are no longer in their natural state. My argument is that humans are capable of doing this to themselves. Even if human technology can be considered natural, it nevertheless functions by removing humans from their original nature (technology is the beaver, and humans are the wood).

(I think a better term than technology is human artifice) — Merkwurdichliebe

Okay. Then you would use terms like "beaver artifice", "avian artifice" and "stellar artifice" to refer to beaver dams, birds nests, and the heavier atomic elements in order to be consistent and to avoid arbitrarily singling out humans as the only natural that can change its environment - correct?

What about wildfires started by lightning that burn trees, or storms that uproot them? Do these processes also cause unnatural states in the trees? So maybe you've really just moved the goal posts. Instead of exhibiting a preference for humans, you seem to be exhibiting a preference for life vs. non-life as shapers of their environments. If you're going to actually say that uprooted trees from storms are "unnatural", then we can just agree to disagree at that point.

And you should cover your back with Lorem Ipsum — Merkwurdichliebe

:rofl::victory:

I'm actually going to do this one day.

Well then we will agree. Perhaps, I require a biological component to regard something as natural. I just find, that to regard absolutely everything that exists as natural, and nothing as synthetic, is an overgeneralization.

I'm going to agree with Banno here.

The subject/object distinction is fraught. It's a bottle because when one attempts to take account of all things by virtue of saying that they are either one or the other, they will inevitably arrive at all of the well-known unresolvable philosophical problems. The problems are a result of the framework itself.

Some things consist of both, and thus are neither. The dichotomy cannot take proper account of those things. Hence... the unresolvable issues. Failing to realize that this is what's happening, even when it is pointed out is akin to remaining inside the bottle...

Hence... the unresolvable issues. — creativesoul

I always like to revisit these topics with a fresh eye - "a fish I" (that's for @banno).

The big mistake is in thinking that there are any issues to resolve in the first place. All we can ever do is methodically trace out the logical consequences of self-evident/groundless premises (we have to "kick the ladder out from under us"). If we do this thoroughly, one might arrive at some type of personal clarity. But we will never resolve anything of any great significance amongst each other.

So that I prefer vanilla to chocolate ice-cream is a subjective fact - or if you prefer, it is a subjective truth. It's truth is dependent on my own taste. — Banno

The proposition "I prefer vanilla to chocolate ice-cream", is not a subjective truth/fact. The proposition functions to abstract your subjective conception into a mode of objectivity (viz. language). The sentiential truth is found in the propositional transmission of the objectified sense of one's subjective meaning. The "I" simply contains the subject as a grammatical device, it does not represent subjectivity in any existential/metaphysical sense. Propositional truth is only determined by the coherence of its objective sense, never by any subjective meaning.

Subjective statements are category errors where one projects mental properties onto non-mental objects. Objective statements are implied to be about the world independent of the statement itself.

For instance, is the following explanation about an actual state of affairs that is the case whether you say so or not?

The proposition "I prefer vanilla to chocolate ice-cream", is not a subjective truth/fact. The proposition functions to abstract your subjective conception into a mode of objectivity (viz. language). The sentiential truth is found in the propositional transmission of the objectified sense of one's subjective meaning. The "I" simply contains the subject as a grammatical device, it does not represent subjectivity in any existential/metaphysical sense. Propositional truth is only determined by the coherence of its objective sense, never by any subjective meaning. — Merkwurdichliebe

Is it actually the case that the proposition "I prefer vanilla to chocolate ice-cream", is not a subjective truth/fact regardless of whether you claim it and Banno believes it?

By disagreeing with someone you are essentially telling them that their version is wrong and yours is right and that there is a state of affairs independent of what you both are claiming and that language is simply a means of representing some state of affairs that is either more or less accurate than another claim about that state of affairs.

By disagreeing with someone you are essentially telling them that their version is wrong and yours is right — Harry Hindu

Sometimes you're just presenting an alternate way to look at or feel about things, by the way.

For example, I'll often say things like, "I disagree. I feel that so and so's album x is one of their better albums."

I'm not telling the person that I'm right and they're wrong. I'm just presenting difference.

Sometimes you're just presenting an alternate way to look at or feel about things, by the way — Terrapin Station

Then you are referring to your view of the thing and not the thing itself. In this instance you wouldnt be disagreeing with someone, you would be talking past each other.

You have said yourself that saying it doesnt make it so. If saying it doesnt make it so, then what makes it so? And are we talking about your view of the world, or the world itself independent of both of our views?

In this instance you wouldnt be disagreeing with someone, you would be talking past each other. — Harry Hindu

"Disagreeing" is a way of saying "I feel differently than you do" in these situations. That's a common sense of the term "disagree."

"Disagreeing" is a way of saying "I feel differently than you do" in these situations. That's a common sense of the term "disagree." — Terrapin Station

You seem to be telling me that the string of symbols, "disagreeing", has a meaning independent of how I feel about it, and if I feel differently then I would be "wrong".

In discussing some state of affairs, it is useful to stay on topic and not change the topic to someone's feelings when were talking about how things are independent of any feelings.

You seem to be telling me that the string of symbols, "disagreeing", has a meaning independent of how I feel about it, and if I feel differently then I would be "wrong". — Harry Hindu

That would amount to not understanding the common sense of the term that I just described.

Is it actually the case that the proposition "I prefer vanilla to chocolate ice-cream", is not a subjective truth/fact regardless of whether you claim it and Banno believes it? — Harry Hindu

In this case, it is the case. In another case it may not be. Both cases may be equally sensible internally, and totally contradictory externally. But that is okay since the constant of each is independent of the other, and each uniquely contains it's own exclusive subset variables.

By disagreeing with someone you are essentially telling them that their version is wrong and yours is right and that there is a state of affairs independent of what you both are claiming and that language is simply a means of representing some state of affairs that is either more or less accurate than another claim about that state of affairs. — Harry Hindu

That is accurate. Unfortunately thought is infinite, and the range of possible perspectives is inexhaustible. Thus, it should be noted, what you say is also true for alternative cases that do not necessarily disagree.

Hence... the unresolvable issues.
— creativesoul

I always like to revisit these topics with a fresh eye - "a fish I" (that's for banno).

The big mistake is in thinking that there are any issues to resolve in the first place. All we can ever do is methodically trace out the logical consequences of self-evident/groundless premises (we have to "kick the ladder out from under us"). If we do this thoroughly, one might arrive at some type of personal clarity. But we will never resolve anything of any great significance amongst each other. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's just not true. Not all premisses are on equal footing. Not all are groundless.